If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is Matrix trolling for Chicken Little?

The latest issue of Scientific American has an article by Thomas Lee, reproduced at http://www.sciam.com/2002/0102issue/0102lee.html. Lee states that sometime in first half 2002, 3-D memory chips will make their appearance, that reduce manufacturing costs 10-fold and incorporate the stacking of memory circuits. Lee states: "They will be just the first of a new generation of dense, inexpensive chips that promise to make digital recording media both cheap and convenient enough to replace photographic film and audiotape. At another wedsite, http://www.edtnscandinavia.com/story/OEG20011219S0041, I learn that that the first of these chips will be a 64-bit write-once memory chip called the Matrix 3-D Memory. The authors state: The "consumable memory" chip is expected to compete with such low-cost consumable storage media as camera film and audio cassette tapes. "It seems there is no limit to the number of layers that could be added." What do we make of all this? Large format survived the Kodak camera ("You take the picture. We do the rest.") and the 35 mm camera. But this stackable chip may be the impact that layers the film industry with Iridium. What is implied is that very shortly these stackable memory chips will outdo film

Is Matrix trolling for Chicken Little?

Is Matrix trolling for Chicken Little?

Certainly you're not implying that digital imaging will replace large format equipment, are you?

Digital backs by companies like Phase One already allow large format users to both maintain the large format advantage and switch to digital at the same time. These chips will just make life a bit easier for the designers and manufacturers of these backs.

As with tradtional film, the highest digital image quality and maximum amount of image control available remains with the view camera.

Is Matrix trolling for Chicken Little?

Brians' point is a good one. LF cameras are under no threat by this new digital recording medium - it may even be a blessing if it would allow the cost of LF digital backs to come down.

The perfect image taking medium for me allows perspective and focus control, along with a cost effective means to record, store, and print the image. This sounds like it may help in the recording and storage areas. Bring it on !!!!

Is Matrix trolling for Chicken Little?

"Digital makes sense where the photography is happening every day, using the same type of lighting equipment and the same size of output and printing quality are known in advance. Going digital is not suited to a studio which suits different types of subject matter and uses varying lighting techniques. With advertising clients, the digital output is usually not known till the end of a production schedule. without this vita linformation being made available beforehand, the only answer is to record the image at very high resolution, which is al imitation on most digital camera backs. there are individuak cameras to suit these different ways of working but none that can do it all.

Doubtless, at some time in the future there will be a digital camera capable of capturing images under different working conditions, with rapid shooting, that is also lightweight andeconomical to buy. We have sucha system now of course and it's called 'film' -- it is extremely versatile and costs around $8.00 per gigabyte in storage after processing.

Digital capture is all too often being promoted as an easy solution, and iti s interesting to note that of professional digital camera sales, a large number have been to repro houses looking to save on external photography costs and provide an all-in-one service to their clients. This has led to a drop in standards, because the people using these cameras are not trained photographers. Unfortunately there are end clientswho view the advantages of digital photography purely on the basis of cost savings: increased productivity, fast turn around and never mind the creativity (or problem solving skills- E.V.). It is likely that photographers with professional lighting skills will be brought in to work as employees, or that digital studios of the future will be collectives of freelance photographers sharing the equipment between them. Far from making life easier, the future of digital is going to involve major financial investments that will have to be recouped within a maximum time span of two to three years."

Is Matrix trolling for Chicken Little?

Is Matrix trolling for Chicken Little?

BORING, BORING, BORING - There are few things I've come to dislike quite so much as people who claim to be able to predict the future, especially as it relates to digital imaging. If Mr. Lee et al could predict the future with the accuracy they claim, they'd all be billionaires and wouldn't be wasting their time diddling around with writing articles for "Scientific American." You'd think by now they would have given up on these hapless predictions.

Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.